For release on delivery

12:25 p.m. EST

December 2, 2015

The Economic Outlook and Monetary Policy

Remarks by
Janet L. Yellen
Chair
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
at
The Economic Club of Washington
Washington, D.C.

December 2, 2015

Thank you to the Economic Club of Washington for inviting me to speak to you
today. I would like to offer my assessment of the U.S. economy, nearly six and half
years after the beginning of the current economic expansion, and my view of the
economic outlook. I will describe the progress the economy has made toward the Federal
Open Market Committees (FOMC) goals of maximum employment and stable prices
and what the current situation and the outlook imply for how monetary policy is likely to
evolve to best foster the attainment of those objectives.
The Economic Outlook
The U.S. economy has recovered substantially since the Great Recession. The
unemployment rate, which peaked at 10 percent in October 2009, declined to 5 percent in
October of this year. At that level, the unemployment rate is near the median of FOMC
participants most recent estimates of its longer-run normal level.1 The economy has
created about 13 million jobs since the low point for employment in early 2010, and total
nonfarm payrolls are now almost 4-1/2 million higher than just prior to the recession.
Most recently, after a couple months of relatively modest payroll growth, employers
added an estimated 271,000 jobs in October. This increase brought the average monthly
gain since June to about 195,000--close to the monthly pace of around 210,000 in the first
half of the year and still sufficient to be consistent with continued improvement in the
labor market.
Despite these substantial gains, we cannot yet, in my judgment, declare that the
labor market has reached full employment. Let me describe the basis for that view.

See table 1 in the Summary of Economic Projections, an addendum to the minutes of the September 2015
FOMC meeting. See Board of Governors (2015b).

-2 To begin with, I believe that a significant number of individuals now classified as

out of the labor force would find and accept jobs in an even stronger labor market. To be
classified as unemployed, working-age people must report that they have actively sought
work within the past four weeks. Most of those not seeking work are appropriately not
counted as unemployed. These include most retirees, teenagers and young adults in
school, and those staying home to care for children and other dependent family members.
Even in a stronger job market, it is likely that many of these individuals would choose not
to work.
But some who are counted as out of the labor force might be induced to seek work
if the likelihood of finding a job rose or if the expected pay was higher. Examples here
include people who had become too discouraged to search for work when the prospects
for employment were poor and some who retired when their previous jobs ended. In
October, almost 2 million individuals classified as outside the labor force because they
had not searched for work in the previous four weeks reported that they wanted and were
available for work. This is a considerable number of people, and some of them
undoubtedly would be drawn back into the workforce as the labor market continued to
strengthen. Likewise, some of those who report they dont want to work now could
change their minds in a stronger job market.
Another margin of labor market slack not reflected in the unemployment rate
consists of individuals who report that they are working part time but would prefer a fulltime job and cannot find one--those classified as part time for economic reasons. The
share of such workers jumped from 3 percent of total employment prior to the Great
Recession to around 6-1/2 percent by 2010. Since then, however, the share of these part

-3 time workers has fallen considerably and now is less than 4 percent of those employed.
While this decline represents considerable progress, particularly given secular trends that
over time may have increased the prevalence of part-time employment, I think some
room remains for the hours of these workers to increase as the labor market improves
further.
The pace of increases in labor compensation provides another possible indicator,
albeit an imperfect one, of the degree of labor market slack. Until recently labor
compensation had grown only modestly, at average annual rates of around 2 to 2-1/2
percent. More recently, however, we have seen a welcome pickup in the growth rate of
average hourly earnings for all employees and of compensation per hour in the business
sector. While it is too soon to conclude whether these more rapid rates of increase will
continue, a sustained pickup would likely signal a diminution of labor market slack.
Turning to overall economic activity, U.S. economic output--as measured by
inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP), or real GDP--has increased at a
moderate pace, on balance, during the expansion. Over the first three quarters of this
year, real GDP is currently estimated to have advanced at an annual rate of 2-1/4 percent,
close to its average pace over the previous five years. Many economic forecasters expect
growth roughly along those same lines in the fourth quarter.
Growth this year has been held down by weak net exports, which have subtracted
more than 1/2 percentage point, on average, from the annual rate of real GDP growth
over the past three quarters. Foreign economic growth has slowed, damping increases in
U.S. exports, and the U.S. dollar has appreciated substantially since the middle of last
year, making our exports more expensive and imported goods cheaper.

-4 By contrast, total real private domestic final purchases (PDFP)--which includes

household spending, business fixed investment, and residential investment, and currently
represents about 85 percent of aggregate spending--has increased at an annual rate of
3 percent this year, significantly faster than real GDP. Household spending growth has
been particularly solid in 2015, with purchases of new motor vehicles especially strong.
Job growth has bolstered household income, and lower energy prices have left consumers
with more to spend on other goods and services. These same factors likely have
contributed to consumer confidence that is more upbeat this year than last year. Increases
in home values and stock market prices in recent years, along with reductions in debt,
have pushed up the net worth of households, which also supports consumer spending.
Finally, interest rates for borrowers remain low, due in part to the FOMCs
accommodative monetary policy, and these low rates appear to have been especially
relevant for consumers considering the purchase of durable goods.2
Other components of PDFP, including residential and business investment, have
also advanced this year. The same factors supporting consumer spending have supported
further gains in the housing sector. Indeed, gains in real residential investment spending
have been faster so far in 2015 than last year, although the level of new residential
construction still remains fairly low. And outside of the drilling and mining sector, where
lower oil prices have led to substantial cuts in outlays for new structures, business
investment spending has posted moderate gains.
On balance, the moderate average pace of real GDP growth so far this year and
over the entire expansion has been sufficient to help move the labor market closer to the

For a recent empirical assessment, see Johnson, Pence, and Vine (2014).

-5 FOMCs goal of maximum employment. However, less progress has been made on the
second leg of our dual mandate--price stability--as inflation continues to run below the
FOMCs longer-run objective of 2 percent. Overall consumer price inflation--as
measured by the change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures--was
only 1/4 percent over the 12 months ending in October. However, this number largely
reflects the sharp fall in crude oil prices since the summer of 2014 that, in turn, has
pushed down retail prices for gasoline and other consumer energy products. Because
food and energy prices are volatile, it is often helpful to look at inflation excluding those
two categories--known as core inflation--which is typically a better indicator of future
overall inflation than recent readings of headline inflation. But core inflation--which ran
at 1-1/4 percent over the 12 months ending in October--is also well below our 2 percent
objective, partly reflecting the appreciation of the U.S. dollar. The stronger dollar has
pushed down the prices of imported goods, placing temporary downward pressure on
core inflation.3 The plunge in crude oil prices may also have had some small indirect
effects in holding down the prices of non-energy items in core inflation, as producers
passed on to their customers some of the reductions in their energy-related costs. Taking
account of these effects, which may be holding down core inflation by around 1/4 to
1/2 percentage point, it appears that the underlying rate of inflation in the United States
has been running in the vicinity of 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 percent.
Let me now turn to where I see the economy is likely headed over the next several
years. To summarize, I anticipate continued economic growth at a moderate pace that
will be sufficient to generate additional increases in employment, further reductions in

For a more detailed discussion of the recent behavior of inflation, see Yellen (2015).

-6 the remaining margins of labor market slack, and a rise in inflation to our 2 percent
objective. I expect that the fundamental factors supporting domestic spending that I have
enumerated today will continue to do so, while the drag from some of the factors that
have been weighing on economic growth should begin to lessen next year. Although the
economic outlook, as always, is uncertain, I currently see the risks to the outlook for
economic activity and the labor market as very close to balanced.
Turning to the factors that have been holding down growth, as I already noted, the
higher foreign exchange value of the dollar, as well as weak growth in some foreign
economies, has restrained the demand for U.S. exports over the past year. In addition,
lower crude oil prices have reduced activity in the domestic oil sector. I anticipate that
the drag on U.S. economic growth from these factors will diminish in the next couple of
years as the global economy improves and the adjustment to prior declines in oil prices is
completed.
Although developments in foreign economies still pose risks to U.S. economic
growth that we are monitoring, these downside risks from abroad have lessened since late
summer. Among emerging market economies, recent data support the view that the
slowdown in the Chinese economy, which has received considerable attention, will likely
continue to be modest and gradual. China has taken actions to stimulate its economy this
year and could do more if necessary. A number of other emerging market economies
have eased monetary and fiscal policy this year, and economic activity in these
economies has improved of late. Accommodative monetary policy is also supporting
economic growth in the advanced economies. A pickup in demand in many advanced

-7 economies and a stabilization in commodity prices should, in turn, boost the growth
prospects of emerging market economies.
A final positive development for the outlook that I will mention relates to fiscal
policy. This year the effect of federal fiscal policy on real GDP growth has been roughly
neutral, in contrast to earlier years in which the expiration of stimulus programs and
fiscal policy actions to reduce the federal budget deficit created significant drags on
growth.4 Also, the budget situation for many state and local governments has improved
as the economic expansion has increased the revenues of these governments, allowing
them to increase their hiring and spending after a number of years of cuts in the wake of
the Great Recession. Looking ahead, I anticipate that total real government purchases of
goods and services should have a modest positive effect on economic growth over the
next few years.5
Regarding U.S. inflation, I anticipate that the drag from the large declines in
prices for crude oil and imports over the past year and a half will diminish next year.
With less downward pressure on inflation from these factors and some upward pressure
from a further tightening in U.S. labor and product markets, I expect inflation to move up
to the FOMCs 2 percent objective over the next few years. Of course, inflation
expectations play an important role in the inflation process, and my forecast of a return to
our 2 percent objective over the medium term relies on a judgment that longer-term
inflation expectations remain reasonably well anchored. In this regard, recent measures

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that current federal fiscal policies will have little effect on
economic growth this year, but that earlier fiscal policy actions reduced the rate of real GDP growth
roughly 1-1/2 percentage points in 2013 and about 1/4 percentage point in 2014 relative to what it would
have been otherwise. See Congressional Budget Office (2015a).
5
See Congressional Budget Office (2015b).

-8 from the Survey of Professional Forecasters, the Blue Chip Economic Indicators, and the
Survey of Primary Dealers have continued to be generally stable. The measure of longerterm inflation expectations from the University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers, in
contrast, has lately edged below its typical range in recent years. However, this measure
often seems to respond modestly, though temporarily, to large changes in actual inflation,
and the very low readings on headline inflation over the past year may help explain some
of the recent decline in the Michigan measure.6 Market-based measures of inflation
compensation have moved up some in recent weeks after declining to historically low
levels earlier in the fall. While the low level of these measures appears to reflect, at least
in part, changes in risk and liquidity premiums, we will continue to monitor this
development closely. Convincing evidence that longer-term inflation expectations have
moved lower would be a concern because declines in consumer and business expectations
about inflation could put downward pressure on actual inflation, making the attainment of
our 2 percent inflation goal more difficult.
Monetary Policy
Let me now turn to the implications of the economic outlook for monetary policy.
Reflecting progress toward the Committees objectives, many FOMC participants
indicated in September that they anticipated, in light of their economic forecasts at the
time, that it would be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate by the
end of this year. Some participants projected that it would be appropriate to wait until
later to raise the target funds rate range, but all agreed that the timing of a rate increase

For example, the University of Michigan survey measure of longer-term inflation expectations was
temporarily elevated relative to its usual range in 2008 when crude oil and other commodity prices spiked
and pushed up actual headline inflation for a time.

-9 would depend on what the incoming data tell us about the economic outlook and the
associated risks to that outlook.
In the policy statement issued after its October meeting, the FOMC reaffirmed its
judgment that it would be appropriate to increase the target range for the federal funds
rate when we had seen some further improvement in the labor market and were
reasonably confident that inflation would move back to the Committees 2 percent
objective over the medium term. That initial rate increase would reflect the Committees
judgment, based on a range of indicators, that the economy would continue to grow at a
pace sufficient to generate further labor market improvement and a return of inflation to
2 percent, even after the reduction in policy accommodation. As I have already noted, I
currently judge that U.S. economic growth is likely to be sufficient over the next year or
two to result in further improvement in the labor market. Ongoing gains in the labor
market, coupled with my judgment that longer-term inflation expectations remain
reasonably well anchored, serve to bolster my confidence in a return of inflation to
2 percent as the disinflationary effects of declines in energy and import prices wane.
Committee participants recognize that the future course of the economy is
uncertain, and we take account of both the upside and downside risks around our
projections when judging the appropriate stance of monetary policy. In particular, recent
monetary policy decisions have reflected our recognition that, with the federal funds rate
near zero, we can respond more readily to upside surprises to inflation, economic growth,
and employment than to downside shocks. This asymmetry suggests that it is appropriate
to be more cautious in raising our target for the federal funds rate than would be the case

- 10 if short-term nominal interest rates were appreciably above zero.7 Reflecting these
concerns, we have maintained our current policy stance even as the labor market has
improved appreciably.
However, we must also take into account the well-documented lags in the effects
of monetary policy.8 Were the FOMC to delay the start of policy normalization for too
long, we would likely end up having to tighten policy relatively abruptly to keep the
economy from significantly overshooting both of our goals. Such an abrupt tightening
would risk disrupting financial markets and perhaps even inadvertently push the economy
into recession. Moreover, holding the federal funds rate at its current level for too long
could also encourage excessive risk-taking and thus undermine financial stability.
On balance, economic and financial information received since our October
meeting has been consistent with our expectations of continued improvement in the labor
market. And, as I have noted, continuing improvement in the labor market helps
strengthen confidence that inflation will move back to our 2 percent objective over the
medium term. That said, between today and the next FOMC meeting, we will receive
additional data that bear on the economic outlook. These data include a range of
indicators regarding the labor market, inflation, and economic activity. When my
colleagues and I meet, we will assess all of the available data and their implications for
the economic outlook in making our policy decision.

See, for example, Adam and Billi (2007), Nakata (2012), and Evans and others (2015).
Milton Friedman famously concluded that monetary actions affect economic conditions only after a lag
that is both long and variable (1961, p. 447). Evidence that monetary policy affects inflation with a lag
comes in part from vector autoregressions in which monetary policy shocks have been identified under a
variety of identification assumptions. See, for example, Christiano, Eichenbaum and Evans (2005) and
Uhlig (2005).

- 11 As you know, there has been considerable focus on the first increase in the federal
funds rate after nearly seven years in which that rate has been at its effective lower
bound. We have tried to be as clear as possible about the considerations that will affect
that decision. Of course, even after the initial increase in the federal funds rate, monetary
policy will remain accommodative. And it bears emphasizing that what matters for the
economic outlook are the publics expectations concerning the path of the federal funds
rate over time: It is those expectations that affect financial conditions and thereby
influence spending and investment decisions. In this regard, the Committee anticipates
that even after employment and inflation are near mandate-consistent levels, economic
conditions may, for some time, warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below levels
the Committee views as normal in the longer run.
This expectation is consistent with an implicit assessment that the neutral nominal
federal funds rate--defined as the value of the federal funds rate that would be neither
expansionary nor contractionary if the economy were operating near its potential--is
currently low by historical standards and is likely to rise only gradually over time. One
indication that the neutral funds rate is unusually low is that U.S. economic growth has
been quite modest in recent years despite the very low level of the federal funds rate and
the Federal Reserves very large holdings of longer-term securities. Had the neutral rate
been running closer to the levels that are thought to have prevailed prior to the financial
crisis, current monetary policy settings would have been expected to foster a very rapid
economic expansion, with inflation likely rising significantly above our 2 percent
objective.

- 12 Empirical support for the judgment that the neutral federal funds rate is low
comes from both academic research and Federal Reserve staff analysis. Figure 1
employs four macroeconomic models used by Federal Reserve staff to estimate the
natural real rate of interest, a concept closely related to the neutral rate.9 The measures
of the natural rate shown in this figure represent the real short-term interest rate that
would prevail in the absence of frictions that slow the adjustment of wages and prices to
changes in the economy; under a variety of assumptions, this interest rate has been shown
to promote full employment.10 The shaded blue band represents the range of the
estimates of the natural real rate at each point in time. This analysis suggests that the
natural real rate fell sharply with the onset of the crisis and has recovered only partially.
These findings are broadly consistent with those reported in a paper by Thomas Laubach
and John Williams, shown in figure 2.11

Note that these estimates are in real terms; to obtain estimates of the nominal natural interest rate, one
would add a measure of expected inflation. The four models used are (1) a dynamic stochastic general
equilibrium (DSGE) model developed by the staff of the Federal Reserve Board and described in Kiley
(2013); (2) a DSGE model developed by the staff of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and described
in Del Negro and others (2013); (3) a DSGE model developed by the staff of the Federal Reserve Board
based on Christiano, Motto, and Rostagno (2014); and (4) a DSGE model developed by the staff of the
Federal Reserve Board based on Guerrieri and Iacoviello (2013 [rev. 2014]).
10
The concept of the natural rate goes back to Wicksell, who defined it as the rate that tends neither to
raise nor to lower (1936 [1898], p. 102) commodity prices. Wicksell posited that the natural rate would be
equal to the real interest rate that would balance supply and demand absent monetary frictions. The recent
academic literature draws on this notion to define the natural rate as the real interest rate that would prevail
in the absence of sluggish adjustment in nominal prices and wages. In simple models, this interest rate
would result in stable prices and full employment; in some more complex models, this interest rate has
been found to promote stable inflation and appropriate economic activity, although monetary policymakers
face important tradeoffs in such settings. Importantly, the natural rate varies over time. For example, it
generally rises with expected productivity growth and with preference shocks that capture households
desire to consume today rather than save. For further discussion of the potential usefulness of the natural
rate for monetary policy, see, for example, Barsky, Justiniano, and Melosi (2014) and Crdia and others
(2015). By contrast, Laubach and Williams (2015) employ a statistical approach that defines the natural
rate as one consistent with the economy operating at its full potential once transitory shocks to aggregate
supply and demand have abated. These two approaches to the measurement of the natural real rate are
different but have important similarities. Qualitatively, the two measures would be expected to move
together in response to shocks to productivity growth and preferences so long as those shocks were very
persistent.
11
See Laubach and Williams (2015).

- 13 The marked decline in the neutral federal funds rate after the crisis may be
partially attributable to a range of persistent economic headwinds that have weighed on
aggregate demand. These headwinds have included tighter underwriting standards and
limited access to credit for some borrowers, deleveraging by many households to reduce
debt burdens, contractionary fiscal policy at all levels of government, weak growth
abroad coupled with a significant appreciation of the dollar, slower productivity and labor
force growth, and elevated uncertainty about the economic outlook.12 As the restraint
from these headwinds further abates, I anticipate that the neutral federal funds rate will
gradually move higher over time. Indeed, in September, most FOMC participants
projected that, in the long run, the nominal federal funds rate would be near 3.5 percent,
and that the actual federal funds rate would rise to that level fairly slowly.13
Because the value of the neutral federal funds rate is not directly measureable and
must be estimated based on our imperfect understanding of the economy and the
available data, I would stress that considerable uncertainty attends our estimates of its
current level and even more to its likely path going forward.14 That said, we will learn

12

For analyses of how a sudden tightening in access to credit can lead to household deleveraging, pushing
down the neutral rate of interest, see Eggertsson and Krugman (2012) and Guerrieri and Lorenzoni (2015).
13
See figure 2 in the Summary of Economic Projections, an addendum to the minutes of the September
2015 FOMC meeting. See Board of Governors (2015b). The longer-run normal level of the federal funds
rate reported in the SEP presumably matches participants assessment of the neutral nominal federal funds
rate that will prevail in the longer run. Between June 2012 and September 2015 the median of FOMC
participants estimates of the longer-run level of the federal funds rate declined 75 basis points, to 3.5
percent. When revising down their estimates of the longer-run federal funds rate, participants have
generally cited a lower assessment of the economys longer-run potential growth rate as a contributing
factor.
14
One source of uncertainty regarding the neutral federal funds rate is so-called model uncertainty. As
shown in figure 1, a variety of models that provide plausible descriptions of the economy give somewhat
different estimates of the neutral rate. A second source of uncertainty is the limited sample size of relevant
macroeconomic data: Our estimates of the neutral federal funds rate represent inferences about a moving
target. As a result, although the data provide important signals about the neutral rate, our estimates are
necessarily imprecise. In Laubach and Williams (2003), for example, the standard error of the estimate of
the neutral rate in one baseline model was about 2 percentage points on average. Moreover, one-sided

- 14 more from observing economic developments in the period ahead. It is thereby important
to emphasize that the actual path of monetary policy will depend on how incoming data
affect the evolution of the economic outlook. Stronger growth or a more rapid increase in
inflation than we currently anticipate would suggest that the neutral federal funds rate is
rising more quickly than expected, making it appropriate to raise the federal funds rate
more quickly as well; conversely, if the economy disappoints, the federal funds rate
would likely rise more slowly. Given the persistent shortfall in inflation from our
2 percent objective, the Committee will, of course, carefully monitor actual progress
toward our inflation goal as we make decisions over time on the appropriate path for the
federal funds rate.
In closing, let me again thank the Economic Club of Washington for this
opportunity to speak about the economy and monetary policy. The economy has come a
long way toward the FOMCs objectives of maximum employment and price stability.
When the Committee begins to normalize the stance of policy, doing so will be a
testament, also, to how far our economy has come in recovering from the effects of the
financial crisis and the Great Recession. In that sense, it is a day that I expect we all are
looking forward to.

estimates of the neutral rate--those available to policymakers, based only on data known at the time--are
generally noisier than estimates of the neutral rate at some previous time that incorporate all the data
available.

- 15 References
Adam, Klaus, and Roberto M. Billi (2007). Discretionary Monetary Policy and the Zero
Lower Bound on Nominal Interest Rates, Journal of Monetary Economics,
vol. 54 (3), pp. 728-52.
Barsky, Robert, Alejandro Justiniano, and Leonardo Melosi (2014). The Natural Rate of
Interest and Its Usefulness for Monetary Policy, American Economic Review,
vol. 104 (May), pp. 37-43.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2014). Minutes of the Federal
Open Market Committee, September 16-17, 2014, press release, October 8,
www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20141008a.htm.
--------- (2015a). Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee, March 17-18, 2015,
press release, April 8,
www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20150408a.htm.
--------- (2015b). Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee, September 16-17,
2015, press release, October 8,
www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20151008a.htm.
Christiano, Lawrence J., Martin Eichenbaum, and Charles L. Evans (2005). Nominal
Rigidities and the Dynamic Effects of a Shock to Monetary Policy, Journal of
Political Economy, vol. 113 (February), pp. 1-45.
Christiano, Lawrence J., Roberto Motto, and Massimo Rostagno (2014). Risk Shocks,
American Economic Review, vol. 104 (January), pp. 27-65.
Congressional Budget Office (2015a). The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to
2025. Washington: CBO, January, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49892.

- 16 --------- (2015b). An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025.
Washington: CBO, August, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50724.
Crdia, Vasco, Andrea Ferrero, Ging Cee Ng, and Andrea Tambalotti (2015). Has U.S.
Monetary Policy Tracked the Efficient Interest Rate? Journal of Monetary
Economics, vol. 70 (March), pp. 72-83.
Del Negro, Marco, Stefano Eusepi, Marc Giannoni, Argia Sbordone, Andrea Tambalotti,
Matthew Cocci, Raiden Hasegawa, and M. Henry Linder (2013). The FRBNY
DSGE Model, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports 647. New
York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, October,
www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr647.pdf.
Eggertsson, Gauti B., and Paul R. Krugman (2012). Debt, Deleveraging, and the
Liquidity Trap: A Fisher-Minsky-Koo Approach, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, vol. 123 (3), pp. 1469-513.
Evans, Charles, Jonas Fisher, Franois Gourio, and Spencer Krane (2015). Risk
Management for Monetary Policy Near the Zero Lower Bound, Brookings
Papers on Economic Activity Conference Draft, March 19-20, 2015.
Washington: Brookings Institution, March,
www.brookings.edu/~/media/projects/bpea/spring-2015/2015a_evans.pdf.
Friedman, Milton (1961). The Lag in Effect of Monetary Policy, Journal of Political
Economy, vol. 69 (October), pp. 447-66.

- 17 Guerrieri, Luca, and Matteo Iacoviello (2013). Collateral Constraints and

Macroeconomic Asymmetries, International Finance Discussion Papers 1082r.
Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June; revised
July 2014, www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2013/1082/ifdp1082r.pdf.
Guerrieri, Veronica, and Guido Lorenzoni (2015). Credit Crises, Precautionary Savings,
and the Liquidity Trap, unpublished paper, University of Chicago, January,
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/veronica.guerrieri/research/Credit%20Crises%20J
an%202015.pdf.
Johnson, Kathleen W., Karen M. Pence, and Daniel J. Vine (2014). Auto Sales and
Credit Supply, Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2014-82. Washington:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September,
www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2014/files/201482pap.pdf.
Kiley, Michael T. (2013). Output Gaps, Journal of Macroeconomics, vol. 37
(September), pp. 1-18.
Laubach, Thomas, and John C. Williams (2003). Measuring the Natural Rate of
Interest, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 85 (November), pp. 1063-70.
--------- (2015). Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest Redux, Hutchins Center
Working Papers 15. Washington: Brookings Institution, November,
www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/10/30-natural-interest-rate-laubachwilliams.

- 18 Nakata, Taisuke (2012). Uncertainty at the Zero Lower Bound, Finance and
Economics Discussion Series 2013-09. Washington: Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, December,
www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2013/201309/201309pap.pdf.
Uhlig, Harald (2005). What Are the Effects of Monetary Policy on Output? Results
from an Agnostic Identification Procedure, Journal of Monetary Economics,
vol. 52 (March), pp. 381-419.
Wicksell, Knut (1936). Interest and Prices: A Study of the Causes Regulating the Value
of Money. Translated by R.F. Kahn. London: Macmillan and Co. First
published 1898.
Yellen, Janet L. (2015). Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy, speech delivered at
the Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts at Amherst,
Amherst, Mass., September 24,
www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm.

Figure 1

Estimates of the Real Natural Rate of Interest

from Different Macroeconomic Models

December 2, 2015

Board of Governors
of the Federal
Reserve
System
Bord of Governors
of the Federal
Reserve
System

Figure 2

Estimates of the Real Natural Rate of Interest

from the Laubach-Williams Model

December 2, 2015

Board of Governors
of the Federal
Reserve
System
Bord of Governors
of the Federal
Reserve
System